Whitman v. Boston Elevated Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 02 April 1902 |
| Citation | 181 Mass. 138,63 N.E. 334 |
| Parties | WHITMAN v. BOSTON EL. RY. CO. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Geo. F. Williams and Jas.
A. Halloran, for plaintiff.
M. F. Dickinson and W. B. Farr, for defendant.
Whether the plaintiff was negligent or not did not depend upon the plaintiff's judgment but upon that of the jury, whose duty it was to decide whether he showed the caution which a man of ordinary prudence would observe. Therefore from that point of view the excluded evidence was immaterial. Com. v. Pierce, 138 Mass. 165, 176, 52 Am. Rep. 264.
The question excluded did not seek to bring out a portion of the surrounding facts which could not be stated adequately in detail and which therefore needed to be summed up in some general phrase, as often happens. The external situation sufficiently appeared.
Again there was no question as to what the plaintiff knew about the situation.
The only material fact that we can think of that possibly might have been conveyed by the plaintiff's answer is that he did not get himself run down on purpose. But it does not appear that the defendant charged him with intentionally bringing about the accident, or that the question had any such matter in view. If it was thought necessary to deny intention, a question easily could have been framed that would have been free from objection. Unless it was argued that the plaintiff did intend to get himself run down, his own judgment of the facts sufficiently appeared by what he did. He was allowed to testify that he formed a judgment. See Railway Co. v. Miller, 8 Tex. Civ. App. 241, 246, 27 S.W. 905.
Exceptions overruled.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tinney v. Crosby
...the same effect: Inland and Seaboard Coasting Co. v. Tolson, 139 U.S. 551, 559, 11 S.Ct. 653, 35 L.Ed. 270, 273; Whitman v. Boston Elevated Co., 181 Mass. 138, 139, 63 N.E. 334; Twomey v. Swift, 163 Mass. 273, 275, 39 N.E. 1918; White v. Ballou, 8 Allen, Mass, 408, 409; New Haven Rendering ......
-
Tinney v. Crosby
... ... v. Tolson , 139 U.S. 551, 559, 11 S.Ct. 653, 35 L.Ed ... 270, 273; Whitman v. Boston Elevated Co. , ... 181 Mass. 138, 139, 63 N.E. 334; Twomey v ... Swift , 163 ... ...
-
Carney v. Concord St. Ry.
...49 Am. St Rep. 600; Davis v. Railroad, 68 N. H. 247, 250, 44 Atl. 388; O'Leary v. Railway, 177 Mass. 187, 58 N. E. 585; Whitman v. Railway, 181 Mass. 138, 63 N. E. 334. There being no contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff's intestate, Rhing v. Railroad, 53 Hun, 321, 6 N. Y. S......
-
Hennessey v. Taylor
... ... as might have been the fact in Whitman v. Boston Elevated ... Railway Co., 181 Mass. 138, 63 N.E. 334, or where, in a ... spirit of ... ...